HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Cr. MISC. SOS (BAIL) APPL. NO.742/2020
IN
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 25/2020
Ramniwas S/o Shri Gopal, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Baran
Khurd, Police Station Halena, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan).
(Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Bharatpur)
----Appellants
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr.Suresh Kumar Sahni with Mr.Ram Mohan Sharma For Respondent(s) : Ms.Alka Bhatnagar, AGA For Complainant : Mr.Balveer Singh Beniwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS ORDER 16/08/2021 The instant application for suspension of sentences has been filed on behalf of the appellant, who has been convicted and sentenced by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Bharatpur vide judgment dated 20.12.2019 passed in Sessions Case No.24/2015 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as below:
Convicted for offence under Sentenced
Section
302 r/w 34 IPC Life imprisonment and a fine of
Rs.20,000/-, in default of
payment of fine, to further
undergo 3 years' R.I.
3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PA) Act Life imprisonment and a fine of
(Downloaded on 17/08/2021 at 10:16:45 PM)
(2 of 6) [SOSA-742/2020]
Rs.20,000/-, in default of
payment of fine, to further
undergo 3 years' R.I.
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Learned Public Prosecutor has filed a reply to the suspension of sentences application.
We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant.
The FIR (Ex.P1) was lodged by Bhagmal, father of Deepchand, the deceased at the Police Station Halena on 6.12.2014 alleging that his son Deepchand was forcibly abducted by five accused named Lipendra, Subhay Singh and Ishwar, who were riding one motorcycle and on the other motorcycle, the accused Ramniwas and Chandrabhan had forcibly placed Deepchand in between themselves. It was also alleged that Chandrabhan and Ishwar were armed with fire arms. The witnesses Padam Singh and Prasadi claimed to have seen the deceased being taken away by these accused persons on the two motorcycles. Ishwar allegedly called the younger son of the informant namely Rameshwar and demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/- as ransom. The informant, alongwith Mewaram Gujar went to Moloni and told the people standing there about the unfortunate event. At that time, Yadram's son came around and told that a man was lying dead near his bore-well. The informant and the other persons (Downloaded on 17/08/2021 at 10:16:45 PM) (3 of 6) [SOSA-742/2020] accompanying him reached the bore-well and saw Deepchand lying there. On the basis of this report, FIR (Ex.P1) was registered for the offences under Sections 143, 364A, 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Corruption) Act and investigation was commenced. After investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a charge-sheet against three accused namely Chandrabhan, Ishwar and the appellant herein. Charges were framed against the accused Chandrabhan and Ishwar for the offences under Section 302 read with 120B IPC and 364 IPC and in the alternative, 302 read with 34 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PA) Act, whereas charges were framed against the appellant for the offences under Section 302 read with 120B IPC in the alternative 302 read with 34 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PA) Act. It is significant to note here that the trial court did not frame a charge against the appellant for the offence under Section 364A IPC. As per the post mortem report (Ex.P20), the cause of death of Deepchand was found to be shock as a result of gunshot injury. After trial, the trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as above.
Shri Sahni learned counsel representing the appellant vehemently and fervently urges that the evidence of the two star prosecution witnesses viz. Prasadi P.W.6 and Padam P.W.7 is not reliable. Though these witnesses alleged that the appellant herein (Downloaded on 17/08/2021 at 10:16:45 PM) (4 of 6) [SOSA-742/2020] and the co-accused Chandrabhan were seen forcibly taking away the deceased Chandrabhan on their motorcycle but the trial court did not frame a charge against the appellant herein for the offence under Section 364A IPC. Attention of the court has been drawn to the Panchnama Lash/Inquest Memo (Ex.P4), wherein the witnesses Prasadi and Padam are signatories and it was urged that it was not recorded in the Panchnama that these two witnesses had seen the accused taking away the deceased on their motorcycle. Shri Sahni took us through the statements of the two witnesses of last seen viz. Prasadi P.W.6 and Padam P.W.7 and urges that the evidence of these witnesses is self contradictory. He further contends that the appellant is in custody from 12.1.2015. He does not have any significant criminal antecedents. On these grounds, Shri Sahni implored the Court to accept the application for suspension of sentences and direct release of the appellant on bail during pendency of the appeal.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel. However, they too are not in a position to dispute the fact that the appellant is in custody from 12.1.2015.
(Downloaded on 17/08/2021 at 10:16:45 PM)
(5 of 6) [SOSA-742/2020] Though the prosecution case is founded on an allegation that the appellant and the co-accused Chandrabhan were lastly seen by the two witnesses referred to supra forcibly abducting the deceased on a motorcycle but the trial court did not frame charge against the appellant for the offence under Section 364A IPC. Cause of death of the deceased as per the post mortem report and the evidence of the medical jurist is a single firearm injury which is not attributed to the appellant.
In this background, we are of the opinion that the appellant has available to him plausible grounds for assailing the impugned judgment. The appellant does not have any criminal antecedents as per the reply filed by the learned Public Prosecutor.
Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Bharatpur vide judgment dated 20.12.2019 passed in Sessions Case No.24/2015 against the appellant- applicant Raminwas S/o Shri Gopal, shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail, provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 17.9.2021 and (Downloaded on 17/08/2021 at 10:16:45 PM) (6 of 6) [SOSA-742/2020] whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-
1. That he/she/they will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.
2. That if the applicant(s) changes the place of residence, he/she/they will give in writing his/her/their changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.
3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court.
The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-applicant(s) in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused- applicant(s) was/were tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file shall not be taken into account for statistical purpose relating to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In case the said accused applicant(s) does not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.
(RAMESHWAR VYAS),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
tarun goyal/17
(Downloaded on 17/08/2021 at 10:16:45 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)